the role of english debating tournament in the face of the asean economy community (aec)

The Role of English Debating Tournament

Dinamika Ilmu, Volume 16 (1), 2016 119

DINAMIKA ILMU Vol. 16 No. 1, 2016

P-ISSN: 1411-3031; E-ISSN: 2442-9651

The Role of English Debating Tournament in the Face of the ASEAN Economy Community (AEC)

Husnawadi

The Alumnus of TESOL Flinders University, Australia [email protected]

Syamsudarni

A Master Student at the University of Flinders, Australia [email protected]

Abstract

Since its establishment in the late 2015, the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) with English as the official language has forced its participating countries to improve the quality of English language teaching, in the hope to prepare their people to be globally competitive, as the lack of English proficiency remains the main challenge across the country members. A myriad of empirical evidence shows that English forensic or debating tournament can bring about globally competitive individuals in terms of being highly competent in English together with having higher order thinking skills. In response to the above challenge, this paper sheds some light on how English debating tournament or teaching strategy can generate such competitive generations in Indonesia. Specifically, this paper presents (1) typology of English debating tournaments, (2) how English debating improves the language competence and critical thinking skills by drawing on some of respective research, (3) An example of its practice in an Indonesian EFL classroom and its principles, (4) and its implications on the teaching of English in Indonesia.

Keywords: English debating, AEC, EFL.



A. Introduction English language has been regarded as the global language, which is used by a group of people with different languages as a means of communication in the sectors such as economy, science and politics (Wu & Ben-Canaan, 2006). Majidi (2013) opines that the “socioeconomic power” of English motivates people to embrace it as an international language. This sort of role that English has is known as “the gate-keeping role,” the role that necessitates every individual to acquire in order to get a smoother access jobs, scholarships etc. On account of its significant role, no matter how smart one is, one will never be able to compete globally unless one has a high command of English.

At a lower context such as the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), among the many differences and challenges that exist in the participating countries, say; culture, language and religion, the former is the primary drawback (Yaakub, 2015). One sector included in the AEC blueprint is the employment sector, which requires skillful and talented workers and businessmen. These targeted persons will be less capable of competing with others with high proficiency in English, who may come to their home countries seeking for jobs that primarily require highly proficient individuals in the target language. Hence, English has become the primary concern following its growing use in the ASEAN context (Yaakub, 2015). For instance, a myriad of written discourses both in the forms of scientific studies, or accounts with respect to the issue or birth of AEC in relation to English language teaching has been pervasive among the countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand. Especially in Indonesia, the current minister of higher education research and technology, Muhammad Nasir, opines that the country is in preparation to adopt a bilingual curriculum with English and Indonesian language as the medium of instruction in the sphere of higher education as cited in the article entitled “the bilingual curriculum: a panacea” in TheJakartapost by Sugiharto (2015). He states that the minister is under pressured following the arrival of AEC. This is to say that Indonesia is aware of the importance of English as for its generation to be able to compete in the international level, particularly in the upcoming AEC.

In Indonesia, where English functions as a Foreign language (EFL), the use of the target language in such a context is only dominant within classroom context not beyond (Brown, 2007), and is not used as a medium of communication on daily basis (Oxford, 2003). With this regard, English is found to be difficult to master as learners cannot see the relevance of their learning the language (Brown, 2007). As a consequence, they lack motivation, particularly intrinsic motivation and lose their desire to learn the language. Furthermore, with the existence of national examination, which enforces teachers and students to focus on teaching and learning the forms of language (grammar) at the expense of the communicative competence, has resulted in the loss of appetite of the students in their learning. Thus, this impedes them in the language mastery.

English debating or forensic tournaments known as parliamentary debating systems or competitive debating have been prevailing both in Senior high school or tertiary education levels in Indonesia since more than a decade. Debating was initially introduced by Protagorus as an instructional strategy during ancient Greece between 481-411 BC (Kennedy, 2009). Debating is defined as the action of critiquing and



valuing a wide range of different perspectives either individually or collaboratively to sway others to believe in one's stance (Kennedy, 2007). In English debating tournament, the debate is performed by a group of students (two teams acting as the government and opposition), generally each team consists of three members who act respectively as the first, second and third speaker with subsequent reply speaker commonly from the first and second speaker.

In the handbook of National University Debating Championship (NUDC) issued by the minister of higher education (Departement Pendidikan Nasional, Derektorat Jenderal Managemen Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah, 2009), it is stated that the provision and support to holding the forensic tournament among the university students is in the hope of producing globally competitive generations of Indonesia, the individuals that can compete worldwide. Because debating can help students foster their critical thinking skills and ultimately their English proficiency.

Concerning the roles of English in the ASEAN context with the arrival of AEC and the English debating tournament in Indonesia, this paper sheds some light on how the English debating tournament or teaching strategy can foster students’ English skills and critical thinking skills so that they become the generations who can compete globally within the regional, national or international setting, in the AEC in particular. In structure, this paper presents (1) typology of English debating tournaments, (2) how it can generate highly competitive individuals, and (3) An example of its practice in an EFL classroom in Indonesia and its principles, (4) and its implications on the teaching of English in Indonesian schooling context.

B. Typology of English Debating Tournament in Indonesia

There are three most popular English debating systems used in Indonesia, namely Australasia, World School Debating Championship (WSDC), and British Parliamentary System (BPS). This section will present the nature of each of the aforementioned debating system.

1. Australasia Debating System

The format of this forensic tournament is generally adopted in the debating competition which involves Vocational School students. This is the most straightforward and common debating system among the available formats of debating since it does not require debaters to propose Point of Information (POI). Here are the following abstracts of the format stemming from a debating handbook (LKS, 2005): As the government, the affirmative team presents a proposal to parliament; As the opposition, the negative team rejects the proposal; Both sides are trying to assure that their proposal is the most proportional by saying the parliament (Adjudicator); The time allotment for both affirmative and opposition team is equal; and As the parliament, the adjudicators vote to determine the winner.

The Australasia debating system has the following actors: (1) a chairperson, the one who leads the debate; (2) three debaters from the affirmative team; (3) the opposition team consists of three debaters; (4) a time keeper whose job is to guard the timing; and (5) three adjudicators.



The schema of debate:

Jobs of each speaker:

Overall, all speakers from both affirmative and negative teams have the same job descriptions. However, the first speaker of the affirmative team performs a distinct job as he or she has to define the motion at the very beginning of the debate.

Here are the following job descriptions of each speaker in the format:

The Affirmative First Speaker (A1):

a. Delivering the issue or problem of the debate.

b. Defining the motion.

c. Presenting the subsequent speakers of the affirmative team (the second and third speaker) of what issue or sorts of arguments that each of the respective speaker will talk about.

d. Delivering arguments.

e. Summing up the arguments. The Negative First Speaker (N1):

a. Accepting or challenging the definition of the first affirmative (A1) if necessary (if the definition is not viable).

b. Rebutting the first speaker’s of affirmative team arguments. c. Addressing the issue of the debate (theme line). d. Dividing the job of each subsequent speaker (the second and third speaker) of

what issue or sorts of arguments that each of the respective speaker will talk about.

e. Delivering arguments. f. Summing up the arguments.

The Affirmative Second Speaker (A2):

a. Arguing against the argument of the first speaker of negative team (N1).

CP:Chairperson TK: Time Keeper Affirmative Team: A1: 1st Speaker A2: 2nd Speaker A3: 3rd Speaker HS: Hot Spot Negative Team N1: 1st Speaker N2: 2nd Speaker N3: 3rd Speaker AJ1: 1st Adjudicator AJ2: 2nd Adjudicator AJ3: 3rd Adjudicator

CP TK

A2

A3

N2

N3

A1 N1

HS

AJ2 AJ1 AJ3



a. Bearing the definition of the first speaker of affirmative team (A1) if it is challenged.

b. Supporting the arguments of the A1. c. Delivering point of views, or arguments. The second speaker of the affirmative

team, (A1) has to spend most of the given time on arguing and bringing novel ideas to the debate.

d. Wrapping up the arguments The Negative Second Speaker (N2):

a. Challenging the arguments of both A1 and A2.

b. Advocating the arguments of the N1.

c. Presenting arguments. The N2 has to spend most of the given time on arguing and bringing novel ideas to the debate.

d. Wrapping up the arguments. The Affirmative Third Speaker (A3): The main job of the third speaker is to negate arguments and give more evidences or examples.

a. Negating the arguments of the N1 and N2, particularly the unchallenged ones by the previous speakers of the affirmative (A1 and A2).

b. Empowering the arguments of both A1 and A2 by restating the arguments and providing additional evidence.

c. Summing up the arguments.

d. Must not generate new novel arguments. The Negative Third Speaker (N3):

a. Negating the arguments of the A1, A2 and A3, particularly the unchallenged ones by the previous speakers of the negative (N1 and N2).

b. Empowering the arguments of both N1 and N2 by restating the arguments and providing additional evidence.

c. Summing up the arguments.

d. Must not generate new novel arguments. Reply Speaker: Reply speech is the concluding statement in which both affirmative and negative sides elaborate anything happens during the debate including the clashes. The reply speaker is usually the first speaker. The following are good guidelines of the reply speech:

a. Restating the arguments with strong confidence.

b. Presenting the logical link between the arguments and theme line of the team.

c. Generally, or specifically generating the drawbacks of the opposite team’s arguments.

d. Must no generate new arguments and rebuttal.



Team Splits/ Job Description: As the debate involves all of the speakers in the team, hence, a team-work job,

each speaker should collaborate with the members of the team where he or she belongs to shield the arguments. In short, Job description means distributing the point of view from which each speaker will argue. A myriad of ways are for splitting the job descriptions, namely Economy, Politics, Social, Culture, and so on. Some also employ the notion of advantages and disadvantages and philosophical and practical arguments. Timing: Affirmative Team Negative Team 1st Speaker (5 min)

1st Speaker (5 min)

2nd Speaker (5 min)

2nd Speaker (5 min)

3rd Speaker (5 min)

3rd Speaker (5 min)

Reply Speaker (1st/2nd speaker- 3 min)

Reply Speaker (1st/2nd speaker- 3 min)

When the time indicates 3, 5, 5.20 (minutes and seconds), the time keeper will knock once, twice and continuously respectively. The continuous knock indicates that the debater must close his or her speech. In addition, for the reply speech, when the time shows 2, 3, 3.20 (minutes and seconds), the time keeper will knock once, twice and continuously respectively. When the debater speaks less than 4 minutes and more than 5.20 from the substantive speech, the score is reduced accordingly.

2. World School Debating Championship (WSDC)

This debating system is appealing among the Senior High School students in Indonesia (Departement Pendidikan Nasional, Derektorat Jenderal Managemen Pendidikan Dasar Dan Menengah, 2009). In most respects, the characteristics of the debate are the same as those of the Australasia, but it is different in terms of timing. The substantive time given for each speaker is eight minutes and four minutes for the reply speech. Jobs of each speaker:

The job of each speaker is similar to that of Australasia (see the Australasia format). Scheme of the debate and timing:

Affirmative Team Negative Team 1st Speaker (8 min)

1st Speaker (8 min)

2nd Speaker (8 min)

2nd Speaker (8 min)

3rd Speaker (8 min)

3rd Speaker (8 min)

Reply Speaker Reply Speaker



(1st/2nd speaker- 4 min) (1st/2nd speaker- 4 min) Timing:

During the substantive speech, debaters from the opposition team are allowed to do POI, called Points of Information (POI). POI is allowed to be proposed between

the 1st and the 7th minute. This action is prohibited during the reply speech.

0 1st 2

nd 3

rd 4

th 5

th 6

th 7

th 8

th

POI not allowed POIs allowed POI not allowed

It is not obligatory for each speaker to accept the POI(s). The refusal and acceptance of POI(s) are highly dependent upon the debater himself. The time keeper will knock once between the 1st and 7th minute to indicate that the timing for POI(s) is opened and closed respectively. The double knocks indicate that the substantive time for the speech delivery of each debater has reached 8 minutes. And continuous knocks will appear by eight minutes and thirty seconds, in that the debater must end the speech. Having delivered arguments for more than eight minutes and thirty seconds or less than 7 minutes will adversely impact the scoring.

The reply speech is allotted four minutes to deliver. After the 3th and 4th minute, the time keeper will knock once and twice to signal that the time is almost over and over respectively.

3. British Parliamentary System (BPS)

This type of debating format is common among and adopted by the university students across the globe. The debate in British Parliamentary System (BPS) is performed by eight debaters comprising four teams, each of which consists of two debaters. Usually, the university in Indonesia delegates three debaters to the tournament, one being the additional debater. The terms adhered to the debaters strikingly resemble the people functioning in the parliament. The job for each speaker and rule differ from those of the two aforementioned systems (Australasia and WSDC).

The following are the actors in the debate as quoted from Deane’s BPS handbook (n.d) (Deane, 2014):

1st Speaker, 1st proposition team (the “Prime Minister”) 1st Speaker, 1st opposition team (the “Leader of the Opposition”) 2nd Speaker, 1st opposition team (the “Deputy Prime Minister”) 2nd Speaker, 1st opposition team (the “Deputy Leader of the Opposition”) 1st Speaker, 2nd Speaker of proposition team (the “Member of Government”) 1st Speaker, 2nd Speaker of opposition team (the “Member of the Opposition”) 2nd Speaker, 2nd proposition team (the “government Whip”) 2nd Speaker, 2nd opposition team (the “Opposition Whip”)”

The Job of each Debater: The first speaker of proposition team (Prime minister)

a. Establishing the issue for the proposition to debate.

b. Delivering the substantive materials.



c. Flagging the argument that would be delivered by his partner (Deputy Prime Minister).

The first speaker of opposition team (Leader of the Opposition)

a. Establishing the issue for the opposition to challenge the proposition.

b. Rebutting the first.

c. Delivering own substantive materials.

d. Flagging the argument that would be delivered by his partner (Deputy Leader of the Opposition).

e. Challenging the definition of the motion if necessary. The second speaker of first proposition team (Deputy Prime minister)

a. Rebutting the 1st opposition.

b. Delivering arguments.

c. Strengthening the First proposition team’s arguments with more examples and evidence.

The second speaker of first opposition team (Deputy Leader of the Opposition)

a. Rebutting the first and second speakers of the proposition team.

b. Delivering arguments.

c. Empowering First opposition team’s arguments with more examples and evidence.

The first speaker of second proposition team (Member of Government)

a. Delivering own arguments.

b. Providing an extension of the debate (slightly new materials).

c. Arguing against the arguments of the previous speaker particularly the 2nd opposition.

The first speaker of second opposition team (Member of Government)

a. Rebutting the arguments from the previous speakers, particularly addressing the extension of the third proposition. Summating the proposition side.

b. Delivering own arguments.

c. Delivering an extension if necessary. The second speaker of second proposition team (Government Whip)

a. Summating the proposition side.

b. Empowering the previous speakers from the proposition by generating more evidence and example without new materials.

The second speaker of second opposition team (Opposition Whip)

a. Summating the proposition side.



b. Empowering the previous speakers from the proposition by generating more evidence and example without new materials.

Extension refers to the new materials or arguments brought by the third speaker in the format. Essentially, it is to indicate that their team has something new to propose in relation to the motion. This is, however, not too new, nor too different. It is just slightly new. This is what makes the BPS format differs from the two previous debating formats. Timing:

The BPS format uses seven-minute substantive speech for each speaker. At the first minute and one last minute, the time keeper will knock once to indicate that the POI is not allowed. At the seventh minute, the time keeper will knock twice to remind the debater that the time is almost over. The continuous knock will be appearing when the time reaches seven minutes and twenty seconds. Speaking for less and more than the given substantive time will affect the score of each debater, which is the same as that of the two previous formats.

Here is the diagram indicating the POI timing as quoted from (Deane, 2014).

0 1st 2

nd 3

rd 4

th 5

th 6

th 7

th

POIS not allowed POIS allowed POIs not allowed C. How English Debating Generate Highly Competitive Individuals in Terms

of Improving their English Competence and Critical Thinking Skills This section discusses how debating as either tournament or teaching strategy

improves the English language competence and critical thinking skills. The two supporting skills are the essential elements that can offer every individual to be globally competitive due to the role of English as the global language, and critical thinking skills as the capital to problem solving. Having these two skills will prepare generations of Indonesia to be ready for the international competition, particularly in the AEC.

Debating has been empirically and theoretically proven to improve students’ macro and micro English skills (e.g., Aclan & Aziz, 2015a; Aclan & Aziz, 2015b; Jerome & Algarra, 2005; Othman, Mohamad, & Amiri, 2013; Fauzan, 2016). Othman et al. (2013) reveal that this forensic activity cultivates students’ English speaking and listening skills significantly as this gives them more chances to practice their English. Additionally, Aclan & Aziz (2015b) uncover that this activity enriches students’ English vocabulary items. The study reveals that debate improves students' vocabulary items throughout the discussion and motivates them to cope with new words as they would practice them in the debate through four different ways, namely recognizing unknown words, noting down the words, finding the meaning of the words in their vernacular via a bilingual dictionary, and practicing the words contextually.



Likewise, using three different phases of debating; Pre-debate, Actual debate and Post-debate, another study by Aclan & Aziz (2015a) interviewing experienced debaters from EFL countries, reveals that communication skills along with ideas and vocabulary are acquired through discussion with team members and reading. They also find that students' written discourse is improved as well as the way they organize their ideas in the first stage. During the actual debate, it is reported that communication and critical thinking skills are at the locus of improvement as they need to put the structured arguments in the previous phase into practice including delivering, countering, listening and challenging arguments against opposition in a way that is convincing for both audience and juries. Further, in this central stage, students develop their speaking fluency as they are enforced to do so to deliver more arguments.

In the Structure Classroom Debates (SCDs), the debating used as a teaching strategy in classrooms, recognize the same features as that of tournament debates which allow students to work collaboratively and to be exposed into the target language. The SCDs differ from other debating formats in that they get students to prepare the debated issues or motions in advance (Oros, 2007). It is obvious that SCDs share similar characteristics of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and Collaborative Learning in which learners are the centre of the learning and the teacher acts as the facilitator. Hence, debating either as the tournament or the strategy for teaching in the EFL classrooms can foster students’ command of English, which can bring about competent individuals in the work fields worldwide as English is often the main prerequisite for the job entry.

In order to be able to compete globally within the context of AEC, Indonesians should also have high critical thinking skills as these skills can boost creativity when dealing with problems in the working fields. In this regard, debating can facilitate them to cope with such skills (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Hall, 2011; Kennedy, 2007; Jagger, 2013; Tessier, 2009; Oros, 2007; Healey, 2012), as it feeds them with "Higher Order Thinking skills" of Bloom Taxonomy as analysis, synthesis and evaluation (Kennedy, 2009). Similarly, Hall (2011) argues that debating can improve students’ ability to bring facts into their constructed arguments in different contexts; consequently, promotes their critical thinking. Oros (2007) advocates that debating belongs to a teaching technique that allows students to construct strong arguments through a deep analysis before the class occurs, which assists them to improve their critical thinking skills. Yang & Rusli (2012) in their study on the use of debating as a teaching strategy to promote pre-service teacher students' learning and critical thinking, which involves fifty six students, reveals that 83.9% of the students think that it has developed their critical thinking skills more than the text-book and lecturing. Thus, exposing Indonesian students, as the generations to compete in the AEC, into the English debating tournament, or facilitating their learning by debating as the teaching technique can hone their critical thinking skills.

Debating also accommodates individuals with the communicative skills that represent the real-life encounters, particularly in a democratic environment. These skills include the ability to give opinion, agreement and disagreement. In the daily encounters in offices or working fields, workers are often asked about their opinion on how to solve certain problems. In an official conference or meeting for example, these skills are prevailing. Thus, in the face of the AEC, Indonesians will be able to compete if being



facilitated by debating either as a tournament of an event or a teaching strategy in classrooms.

D. An Example of its Practice in an EFL Classroom in Indonesia Drawing on our experiences as debaters in the past and English lecturers nowadays, the example of using debate as the teaching strategy seems necessary to be part of the discussion on this paper.

A speaking class with the objectives that the students to be able to give opinion, agreement and disagreement. The class uses three phases of activities, namely pre-debate, actual debate and post-debate. The level of the students’ English proficiency is pre-intermediate level. This class meeting occurs twice a week. In the first week, the students are taught expressions related to the language functions and in the second week where the actual debate and post-debate take place.

Pre-debate

During this session, the teacher teaches the students how to express opinions, agreements and disagreements. For example:

Giving opinions: I do believe that…… I’m convinced that…. I strongly believe that…. With this regard, we would like to propose/argue that…. I couldn’t agree more…. You are right, but…. (partial agreement).

Agreements: I agree with the opposition that… I buy the idea of the first/second/third speaker of the affirmative/negative teams saying that…. It’s true what my first/second speaker has opined that…..

Disagreements: I totally disagree that… The speaker of the….just go around bush… It is not true that… I’d like to rebut the first/second/third speaker of affirmative/negative team….

In the following activity, the students are asked to give their opinions about the

advantages and disadvantages of bringing mobile-phones to schools using the expressions and state their position whether they agree or disagree with the given passages.

Then, the teacher divides the students into a group of three and has them discuss the topic with their peers in their group. After that, the teacher chooses the affirmative and negative teams for the debate.

The teacher asks the students in the group to choose who will be the first, second, third and reply speaker. The teacher, then, asks the students to prepare for this debate as their homework and has them search for more evidence and reading through internet together.



Actual-debate This session occurs in the second meeting in which the students have already

had their group either acting as the affirmative of negative team. The teacher sets two tables in front of the classroom and asks the students to sit

as the affirmative and negative team. One of the other students acts as the timekeeper, and the rests act as the adjudicators and audience at the same time. In this way, they have the opportunity to participate in the activity. This activity will happen to the other students alternately. So, all the teams formed in the class will have the opportunity to perform the debate in the class.

Post-debate

This activity occurs after each debate, in which the rest of the students are asked to vote which team seems to win the debate and give their comments. The teacher also gives several constructive speech and opinions for which team is likely to win with positive verbal arousals to both of the team.

Principles of the Activity

The design of the classroom above embraces the notion of Communicative classroom activity, whereby the students are the center of learning and the teacher functions as the facilitator of the learning. The group discussion and authentic language use are prevalent in the class where the students are divided into groups of affirmative and negative teams along with the materials taken from some different sources in the Internet. The communication occurs enormously and interchangeably among the students and between the teacher and the students. Nunan (1999), Richards (2006), and Brown (2007) provide the characteristics of the communicative approach to language teaching, namely the activity should be learner-centered, where the teacher functions as the facilitator; the materials should be authentic, which represents the real-world language; the focus of learning should be on language use or function, not merely the usage or form; the emphasis is on the language fluency, not merely the accuracy. These characteristics are prevalent in the activity designed by using the debate as the teaching strategy.

Thornbury (2005) in the book entitled “how to teach speaking” advocates that the debate as the teaching strategy that can stimulate speaking fluency and automaticity. In fact, the more English learners practice their English at an adequate pace with preparation, the more fluent they are going to be, particularly in the activity that involves interactive communication such as debating. In addition, Brown (2007) argues that automaticity can be acquired when learning focuses on the language function or use and places the grammar at the periphery, in that learning ushers to the acquisition of communicative competence rather than the grammatical competence. This principle is prevalent in the activity designed above, whereby the focus of the learning is on the use of English to deliver arguments. However, it does not mean that grammar is totally ignored; rather it is presented by the teacher during the post-debate session, particularly during the constructive speech delivery.



E. The Implications on the Teaching of English in Indonesian Having found how English debating either as a tournament or a strategy can

improve students’ English proficiency and critical thinking skills ushers in the importance of its application in English classroom in Indonesia, especially in the speaking class. The variety of technique can be the use of “line-continuum” in which students in the class are asked to opine about a certain issue, whether they agree or not, by pointing on a horizontally-drawn line on the whiteboard.

Adopting the three phases of the debate, Pre-debate, Actual debate and Post-debate as in Aclan & Aziz (2015a), can be a fruitful strategy to facilitate students’ learning. This means for teaching can encourage peer-group discussion where the teacher acts as the facilitator of the learning.

The local and national government should perpetually conduct the English debating contests from the Senior High School to higher education level. This policy will result in creating students as the generations that can be globally competitive, particularly in the face of the AEC. As an illustration, a skilful Vocational school graduate majoring in tourism, who is also competent in English and having higher critical thinking skills, will have a wider opportunity to be employed in the tourism sector (one of the focus sectors in the AEC).

In addition to that, schools should encourage the establishment of the English debating clubs to accommodate the needs of students to practice their English in such a communicative environment. What is more, funding should be allocated for the students’ participation in any debating contests. F. Conclusion The arrival of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) should not be seen as the threat, rather as an opportunity to move forward, as the triggering input to generate globally competitive individuals. The primarily challenge of the AEC member countries is the lack of English proficiency, which is also apparent in Indonesia. However, debating tournaments have been appealing among students from all levels of education which have positive impacts on their learning. Because of the importance, English debate is consequently used as a learning strategy. There are three English debating systems used in Indonesia, namely: Australasia, Word School Debating Championship (WSDC), and British Parliamentary System (BPS). As the learning strategy, English debate systems have been theoretically and empirically proven to improve students’ English language competence and critical thinking skills, in which these two skills are essential capitals for individuals to be globally competitive. The Indonesian government and schools should encourage and accommodate the students’ participation in the debating tournaments by allocating more budgets and establishing debating clubs at schools. By doing so, the generations of Indonesia will be more capable for competing in the working fields worldwide, in the face of AEC in particular.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aclan, E. M., & Aziz, N. H. A. (2015a). Exploring parliamentary debate as a pedagogical tool to develop English communication skills in EFL/ESL classrooms. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 4(2), 1–16. http://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.2p.1

Aclan, E. M., & Aziz, N. H. A. (2015b). Why and How EFL Students Learn Vocabulary in Parliamentary Debate Class. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(1), 102–113.

Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. Washington, DC.

Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (3rd ed.). New York: Pearson Education.

Deane, A. (2014). A Guide to British Parliamentary Debating and the World Universities Debating Championships. Retrieved from https://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/WUDC Malaysia_2014_Debating_and_Judging_Manual.pdf

Departement Pendidikan Nasional, Derektorat Jenderal Managemen Pendidikan Dasar Dan Menengah, D. P. P. S. M. A. (2009). Debating Handbook.

Fauzan, U. (2016). Enhancing Speaking Ability of EFL Students through Debate and Peer Assessment. EFL Journal, 1(1).

Hall, D. (2011). Debate: Innovative teaching to enhance critical thinking and communication skills in healthcare professionals. Int. J. Allied Health Sci. Prac, 9, 16–19.

Healey, R. L. (2012). The power of debate: Reflections on the potential of debates for engaging Students in critical thinking about controversial geographical topics. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 36(2), 239–257. http://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2011.619522

Jagger, S. (2013). Affective learning and the classroom debate. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 50(1), 38–50. http://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.746515

Jerome, L., & Algarra, B. (2005). Debating debating: A reflection on the place of debate within secondary schools. The Curriculum Journal, 16(4), 493–508. http://doi.org/10.1080/0958517500384610

Kennedy, R. (2007). In-class debates: Fertile ground for active learning and the cultivation of critical thinking and oral communication skills. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(2), 183–190. Retrieved from http://isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE19(2).pdf#page=83

Kennedy, R. (2009). The power of in-class debates. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(3), 225–236.

LKS. (2005). Buku Panduan Lomba Debat SMK. Denpasar, Bali: Sekretariat Program DIII-GK PPG Kejuruan, LKS Denpasar Bali.

Majidi, A. (2013). English as a Global Language; Threat or Opportunity for Minority Languages? Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 11(4), 33–38. http://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n11p33

Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle, Cengage Learning.



Oros, A. L. (2007). Let’s Debate: Active Learning Encourages Student Participation and Critical Thinking. Journal of Political Science Education, 3(3), 293–311. http://doi.org/10.1080/15512160701558273

Othman, M., Mohamad, F., & Amiri, F. (2013). An English Debate League Competition among Lower form Students: An Experiential Learning Activity. US-China Foreign Language, 11(11), 840–852.

Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language Learning Styles and Strategies: An Overview. Retrieved from http://web.ntpu.edu.tw/~language/workshop/read2.pdf

Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sugiharto, S. (2015, December 26). The Bilingual Curriculum: A Panacea? Jakarta. Retrieved from http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/12/26/the-bilingual-curriculum-a-panacea.html

Tessier, J. T. (2009). Classroom Debate Format. College Teaching, 57(3), 144–152. Thornbury, S. (2005). How to Teach Speaking. New York: Longman. Wu, L., & Ben-Canaan, D. (2006). The Impact of Globalization and the Internet on

English Language Teaching and Learning. Aust. J. Educ, 1–15. Yaakub, M. N. (2015). Challenges in Education towards the Realization of ASEAN

Community 2015. Retrieved from http://www.site.rmutt.ac.th/cpscworkshop/materials/sp.pdf

Yang, C. H., & Rusli, E. (2012). Using Debate as a Pedagogical Tool in Enhancing Pre-Service Teachers’ Learning and Critical Thinking. Journal of International Education Research (JIER), 8(2), 135–144.

the role of english debating tournament in the face of the asean economy community (aec)

Documents